The nuclear reality: lives in limbo after Fukushima

As a nuclear campaigner, I have seen the nuclear industry walk away from its mistakes many times, ignoring people’s suffering.

But it is the terrible effect on people of a nuclear disaster such as Fukushima that really brings home the flaws of the nuclear system.

Nearly two years after the disaster, the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in Japan are still being disrupted. When the disaster hit, their lives were turned upside down. They were forced from their homes, they lost their jobs, families were split up and communities were abandoned due to the radioactive fallout.

People are not able to get fair compensation. Many are still unable to return home or rebuild their lives elsewhere. Imagine living in limbo like that, stuck between past and future.

How can this be happening?

Blame the unfair system that protects the nuclear industry from paying for its failures. This system is called nuclear liability. It is a joke.

Engineer Mitsuhiko Tanaka discusses the cover up of production flaws in the vessel for Reactor 4 at Fukushima. While the flaws and cover up didn’t cause the explosion at Reactor 4, they are examples of why the nuclear industry can’t be trusted.

Make the industry pay

A risky industry like the nuclear industry should have to pay for its damages, just the way big oil companies have to pay for spills. But the nuclear industry is protected. Governments did that to help the nuclear industry get started decades ago. They have never fixed the problems this protection created.

We commissioned three experts to look at the continued Fukushima suffering in relation to the worldwide system of nuclear conventions that lets the nuclear industry off the hook, while at the same time, forcing the public to pay the vast majority of the costs in the event of a nuclear accident.

When there is a disaster, the system doesn't require a nuclear plant operator to pay more than a tiny fraction of the costs of a disaster. Even in Japan, where nuclear operators were supposed to pay all the costs of a disaster, TEPCO, the operator of the Fukushima nuclear plant, simply does not have enough money to pay more than a fraction.

Flawed design

It gets worse. The system doesn't make the companies that supply material for nuclear plants pay anything at all to help the victims. So the world's big reactor sellers, GE, Hitachi and Toshiba among others, pay nothing if there is a disaster at one of the reactors they sell.

The gap between what the nuclear industry pays and what the public pays is enormous. In most countries with reactors, the damages a nuclear operator might be required to pay range from 350 million euros to 1.5 billion euros. That range is tiny when compared with the costs of a disaster.

For example, the Fukushima disaster could cost up to US$250 billion, according to recent estimates. The cost estimates for the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 range from 55 billion euros to 270 billion euros.

The Japanese government had to nationalise TEPCO because it couldn't pay even the early recovery costs. TEPCO's key reactor suppliers GE, Hitachi, and Toshiba, built the plant's reactors based on a flawed design. But they are protected. No help from them.

This means that Japanese taxpayers will end up paying the bulk of the costs of the disaster.

This isn't a problem that just affects Japan. If there was a nuclear disaster at any one of the world's 436 reactors, the same story would play out. Taxpayers would pay most of the costs.

It is well past time when this flawed system should be fixed. It’s simple: the polluter must pay. The companies that create nuclear risks must be made to pay for their failures, not the people who suffer from them.

That's why Greenpeace International has launched a campaign to change the system. Our Fukushima Fallout report that explains the problem is the start. We need your help.

Sign our petition. Let governments know that the entire nuclear industry must be held accountable for the damage it causes.

One thing people could do would be to use existing social media and, working together in large numbers, create "social network smart grids" ...

One thing people could do would be to use existing social media and, working together in large numbers, create "social network smart grids" (SNSG). Strategic use of a SNSG would allow electricity consumers to effectively "vote" for how their power is generated by coordinating their discretionary use of it, favoring one energy source over another, especially during periods of peak demand. Hydro and natural gas, (wind and solar, soon, hopefully) over nukes and coal, for example.

Hi,
Keep yourself up to date with the situation in Japan,
( Fukushima DaiichiPower plant).
Hint "I like" inside our page.
Keep an eye on how people deal with it.
Inform and Help, are our main missions.
Young NPO association, Join us!
From our page on Facebook, Twitter or Mixi,
follow our news and actions, act with us by sharing our page.
Thanks for your support
We count on you to talk from our page arround you.
Regards
FF
www.facebook.com/Fukushima.Future
www.fukushimafuture.com

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

Southern
says:

All over the world it's the same story whenever something goes wrong the real culprits are never held fully accountable for their actions ,look at...

All over the world it's the same story whenever something goes wrong the real culprits are never held fully accountable for their actions ,look at all the BP oil spills the loggers in Indonesia the companies that caused these disasters are allowed to continue as before while never doing repairs ,nature does that if it can recover.

Fukushima is no different ,the corporation that owns it can just continue as before instead of shutting up shop like it is supposed to.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) RobertoA
says:

The nuclear industry will never pay the full price of a disaster. This is for the same reason that I won't have to pay for medical bills if I am ...

The nuclear industry will never pay the full price of a disaster. This is for the same reason that I won't have to pay for medical bills if I am in a car accident. Liability insurance is used to provide a protective financial blanket over the insured. I don't have $25,000 to pay for a hospital stay, but I am covered because I have insurance. The nuclear industry is no exception. This article unfairly portrays the industry as a whole.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace
says:

@RobertoA - I wish you were right. But nuclear operators cannot insure full liabilities, because no insurance or pool of insurers would be willing to ...

@RobertoA - I wish you were right. But nuclear operators cannot insure full liabilities, because no insurance or pool of insurers would be willing to take that risk. See for instance http://www.versicherungsforen.net/fs/vfl/media/leistungen/studienundumfragen/versicherungsprmiefrkkw/Pressekonferenz_02_Erklaerung_final_BEE_EN.pdf

The nuclear industry has an exceptional position - it has been granted liability advantages in the 1950s because it would otherwise never come off the ground. These advantages still exist today.

Suppliers like Areva, Hitachi, GE, Toshiba, Rosatom, Bouygues Alstom, SNC Lavalle, Skoda JS and thousands of others are not held liable at all for their products.

Liability does not only serve to cover damage claims after an accident. They also serve as a feedback to producers to *prevent* accidents from happening - keeping producers sharp that they do not make mistakes. By not having this suppliers liability, the nuclear industry misses one important feedback mechanism.

The nuclear industry is a very unfair system... granted, in an unfair world - but my impression is that the unfairness in the nuclear system is larger than average.

In your example: you do pay for your medical bill, because you pay a premium that is related to the risk you get into an accident of your own fault. A car driver pays for his liability in a liability insurance with his premium. The total of premiums still outweighs the cost of medical care and the difference is the profit for the insurance companies. The nuclear sector does not know this mechanism.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Beppe
says:

Roberto,
both Chernobyl and Fukushima bills have been footed by the taxpayer... no, actually I should say they *are* being footed by the taxpaye...

Roberto,
both Chernobyl and Fukushima bills have been footed by the taxpayer... no, actually I should say they *are* being footed by the taxpayer because neither is completely paid out yet.
Similarly, liability caps for utilities and manifacturers effectively are a taxpayer funded insurance.
Finally, I daresay that if such free insurance (and all the other subsidies) was not there no one would invest into nuclear power generation.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) anonymous-FR
says:

Hi Greenpeace people,
Hi Jan Haverkamp,

I would like to translate the video subtitles to french.
The Youtube automatic transl...

Hi Greenpeace people,
Hi Jan Haverkamp,

I would like to translate the video subtitles to french.
The Youtube automatic translations are OK, but it would be better to have a real translation. Also, it's easier for a viewer to be able to click on "Français", instead of having to click on automatic translation.

If nobody is already working on that, please get in contact with me.
I'm sure your specialist knows how to send me the subtitle file containing the translations, but if they don't here is an "how-to" :
http://youtubecreator.blogspot.fr/2012/09/build-global-audience-on-youtube-by.html